We Don't Have A 'Wild West' Internet Now, But We Will If SOPA Or Similar Is Passed

from the exactly-wrong dept

Nicolas Sarkozy, the President of France, has the sad distinction of being in the vanguard when it comes to really bad ideas concerning the Internet. On his initiative, France became the testing-ground for the three-strikes approach of throwing people off the Internet upon multiple accusations of copyright infringement, without the need for proof or a court order, known there as HADOPI. He also helped put into circulation a view that is much in vogue at the moment:

"Internet is a new frontier, a territory to conquer. But it cannot be a Wild West, a lawless place"

That's what he said in 2010, during a speech he gave in the Vatican. Since then, the "Wild West" Internet has become the standard justification for bringing in harsh new laws like SOPA and PIPA. After all, the argument goes, just as the Wild West had to be tamed in order to become civilized and productive, so must the Internet.

Of course, this overlooks the fact that the Internet is already subject to a whole host of laws in every country. Indeed, often it is subject to multiple jurisdictions because of its global reach and complicated legal position. But there's an even deeper sense in which the idea that the Internet is a Wild West that needs far-reaching laws like SOPA and PIPA imposed upon it is exactly wrong.

The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), the companion bill to the Senate’s PROTECT IP Act, would further privatize adjudication and punishment. Title I of that law (dubbed the E-PARASITE Act) creates a “market-based system to protect U.S. customers and prevent U.S. funding of sites dedicated to theft of U.S. property.” It achieves this by empowering copyright owners who have a “good faith belief” that they are being “harmed by the activities” of a website to send a notice to the site’s payment providers (e.g. PayPal) and Internet advertisers to end business with the allegedly offending site.

The payment providers and advertisers that receive the notice must stop transactions with the site. No judicial review is required for the notice to be sent and for the payments and advertising curtailed -- only the good faith representation of the copyright owner. Damages are also not available to the site owner unless a claimant “knowingly materially” misrepresented that the law covers the targeted site, a difficult legal test to meet. The owner of the site can issue a counter-notice to restore payment processing and advertising but services need not comply with the counter-notice.

That was removed in December, but another section granted immunity to service providers for taking voluntary action to stop infringement. As we noted back then, in many ways that was even worse. Not only would sites on the receiving end of a notice claiming infringement have a huge incentive to take that voluntary action, rather than risk losing immunity, but there were also no counternotice rules, or anything requiring any process for those cut off to be able to have any redress whatsoever.

What both of these approaches and France's HADOPI have in common is that they all seek to institute a system that is extra-judicial, with no requirement for proof of any kind, and which is hard or impossible to appeal against. It is the very definition of arbitrary vigilantism, where private actors get to be judge, jury and executioner. In other words, far from taming a "lawless place" online, SOPA and its ilk would create one where there is none currently.

This would give rise to internet terrorists

Just think of the tool we would be handing the new breed of terrorists, internet terrorists, on a silver platter. Instead of literally blowing up a cafe or store, they could, with the press of a few keys half way around the world, bring down online stores. Just fire off a few emails to service providers, merchant account providers and advertisers and boom, a once thriving business is no more.

But that would just give rise to a new department to fight the cyber war. Or do we have that already?

Anyone who cannot grasp that the internet is a "wild west" needs to be checked for a pulse.

Simply put, it's all there: lawlessness, thievery, business models based on ripping other people off, circumvention of laws, jurisdictional plays, and so on.

It's all there.

What people are objecting to this point is that various countries are actually trying to apply their laws online, and it's a messy business because of the very issues that make it a wild west - especially jurisdictional issues, "Who's the sheriff?" stuff.

What I sniff is another painful attempt by Glyn to say "piracy is okay". You still haven't justified your love of pirating stuff Glyn, keep trying!

Re:

Pathetically transparent ad homs aside:
Yes, crime exists in the virtual world just like it does in the tangible world. Insisting that something, anything must be done without a reasonable discussion of what repercussions there might be from various proposals is simply irresponsible legislating.

What people have objected to up to this point is that various countries are trying to apply their laws online under a different set of rules than offline. Some countries and the business interests that control them just don't want due process to apply online, they don't want any search or seizure to be unlawful online, they want the severity of online crimes to be wildly disproportionate with what the offense actually is given the digital age, and they want jurisdiction online to be easily ignored if it means it's easier to pursue their goals.

No, you see, the difference is that in the Wild West it was the citizens that could do whatever they want, which is what we have now. The Internet after SOPA would be far more like the USSR, in which you can say whatever you want as long as no one higher up decides they don't like what you're saying, and God help you if you try to get anything from anywhere except State-approved sources.

Class Warfare

This is not about the "wild west". Based on the quotes in the main article, this is about private companies essentially acquiring the police/judicial/punitive powers of the State. "Justice" will belong to those with the deepest pockets.

Class Warfare

This is not about the "wild west". Based on the quotes in the main article, this is about private companies essentially acquiring the police/judicial/punitive powers of the State. "Justice" will belong to those with the deepest pockets.

...

The attitudes toward the Internet remind me of the attitudes that fueled colonialism and missionary work: the idea that foreign cultures across the oceans didn't play by the same rules as Europe and were therefore savage barbarians who needed to be converted and made normal. This attitude led to India, considered the cradle of world civilization for millenia, being turned into what it is now. Likewise, the Internet is, to everyone that wants to pay attention, the cradle of the world's culture because anyone can add to it unrestricted. Yet in the eyes of these new colonials, it's a lawless realm of barbaric savages because it doesn't play by the same rules as everyone else and tries to route around any rules imposed.

Re:

Anyone who cannot grasp that the internet is a "wild west" needs to be checked for a pulse.

Question - is it so bad to be a "wild west"

Look at the good side of the wild west.

Here is Henry George talking in the late 19th vcentury and contrasting the parts of America that were then still (to some extent) part of the wild west with the more established east coast cities.

"In the United States, it is obvious that squalor and misery increase as villages grow into cities. Poverty is most apparent in older and richer regions. If poverty is less deep in San Francisco than New York, is it not because it lags behind? Who can doubt that when it reaches the point where New York is now, there will also be ragged children in the streets? "

The good aspect of the wild west is freedom - and freedom brings rapid economic advance and a fairer distribution of wealth.

You, it would seem, just want to stifle the freedom and smother the economic advance in the name of "law and order" which (when translated) actually means nothing other than allowing established vested interests to establish control and crush competition and innovation.

Re:

It is deeper than "play by the same set of rules". The proposed rules are not meant for establishing a level playing field for competition. The proposed rules are meant to give special rights to certain special interest groups and to deprive others of their rights.

Based on the colonialism analogy, I suppose that "mercantilism" could be the descriptive process of what is being urged for the Internet.

Re: Re:

No, nobody is suggesting someone in Kenya is "circumventing" US laws... unless of course they are marketing to Americans, and doing so in a manner which is not legal in the US.

It's not a "maximalist" issue, contrary to your aggressive attempt to reframe the situation. It applies to all sorts of economic crimes, from Nigerian scams to the old "secret shopper" game, the "check too big, wire back the difference" people, and the like. They are all playing the game based on hiding out in countries where their crime is unlikely to be punished, or where their crime is not considered a real crime.

Circumventing the law of one country by working from another country that won't prosecute you for the crime and won't extradite you is pretty much "wild west".

Re: Class Warfare

This seems like a fairly accurate perception. The Wild West had robber barons and railroad tycoons and powerful political and business men who used taxpayer money, US Army soldiers, and Pinkerton detectives to enforce their will on poorer people and Native Americans.

We have Disney-sponsored Homeland Security SWAT Team raids on copyright infringers and Hollywood lobbyist-written legislation sponsored by bought politicians.

Re: Re:

Wow, talk about going a long way to make a small point. I would say that the only difference is one of perception, that is to say "ragged children in the street" rather than "ragged children on dusty farms far from sight".

The wild west concept meant that most men died young, where simple medical issues were not addressed because doctors refused to set up shop, and most people lived in constant fear of the lawlessness that existed.

Situations that make it almost impossible to do honest business, because you are more than likely going to get held up, have your products stolen, or your business destroyed by people who don't care about the law or what is fair.

The wild west had very few redeeming features, and as soon as the US was able to tame it, the US suddenly grew. Until then, it was just a grind of swindlers, thieves and scammers... sort of like the internet today. (not to mention the snake oil salesmen, sort of like Mike).

Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re:

Your response makes me wonder if you know anything of the frontier life, or pre-Civil War medicine.

"as soon as the US was able to tame it, the US suddenly grew."
This is so non-sensical as to be absurd. Taming the frontier is the same as the US growing. And it wasn't instantly, it was several hundred years. Chiping away at Native American territories. Remember those guys?

The wild west concept meant that most men died young, where simple medical issues were not addressed because doctors refused to set up shop, and most people lived in constant fear of the lawlessness that existed.
It wasn't a concept. It was real life. Most men died young from ailments that were incurable at the time. Did you know that Abraham Lincoln died of blood loss caused by his A+ doctors bleeding him?
No, there was plenty of business to do in the frontier. Otherwise, outlaws wouldn't have had anyone to rob. You seem to be entirely ignorant of the facts.
Your analogy is fail. The spell is cancelled. Please try another.

Re: Re: Re:

"Almost impossible to do honest business"? Yes, that's why Amazon, Bandcamp, iTunes, Steam and Netflix went under so quickly, all those thieves on the Internet stealing their products. It's a good thing so many people stole porn before that industry also went under or I'd have nothing to do with this web browser.
Veoh, if you'll recall, was a business that was destroyed by a copyright lawsuit. Not the ruling, just the lawsuit. THAT is the kind of thing that's threatening to honest business. What companies have been lost because they were upstaged by pirates? Certainly not the ones pushing the current bills.
And even assuming ther your belief that the current freedom of the Internet is bad were correct, that does not make anything being done now a better alternative. The laws that are currently in the pipeline would be like pruning a hedge with a flamethrower. We'd go from Wild West to Soviet Union.

Apparently I and 20 other people had the same idea but I'll say it my way anyway:

It sure is like the Wild Wild West, if you mean big ranchers and mine operators and railroads running the show, buying the sheriff, owning the territorial legislatures, stealing land and cattle, oppressing the immigrants, lynching whoever they want, and peeing right in the middle of the stream!

There's a mistake in the first sentence

"Nicolas Sarkozy, the President of France, has the sad distinction of being in the vanguard when it comes to really bad ideas concerning the Internet."
This is wrong - Nicolas Sarkozy, the President of France, has the sad distinction of being in the vanguard when it comes to really bad ideas, period.

The truth about the old west

I've never understood the big claims about the so-called 'lawless' wild west. The truth is that the old west was far from being lawless. It may not have had the thousands of stupid laws that abound today, but it had all the important laws. And those laws were enforced with stark reality. Gunmen and outlaws died young, often from hanging. The settlers didn't take kindly to real threats, and serious criminals tended to get chased out of town and hunted down by the posse in short order. That's why the old west thrived and grew so fast. They were safe enough from bandits, and weren't being repressed by stupid laws. They could focus on innovation and effort instead of having to keep looking over their shoulders.

The only place the bad guys run wild is in Hollywood movies. There are maybe a half-dozen true stories about bandit/outlaw gangs and hundreds of movies retelling them over and over and over again.

Think about it. If the old west were really the way Hollywood describes it would the banks actually have had less security features then they do today? Heck no, they would have had three full-time gunmen sitting guarding the place at all time. The funny thing is that they did exactly that in the 'civilized' eastern cities.

So if the Internet is anything like the old west, then that is actually a serious compliment, since it means that stupid laws don't exist and people can surge forward with the wonderful creativity and vitality that made originally created this civilization and made it thrive!

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Wow, you are a little to literal in your thinking.

Amazon, Itunes, and many others spend a small fortune every day to prevent their sites from getting hacked, to prevent people from making prank orders, and to avoid being scammed by people using stolen credit cards, fake IDs, and the like.

Because of the anonymous nature of the intenet, people actually do scam even the big companies.

Your opinions of proposed laws don't change the basic facts: This is the wild west, and just like the wild west, nobody is happy when the sheriff shows up and actually enforces the law. What you have here is basically an electronic lynching party for anyone who has the balls to actually stand up to the pirates and scammers. Sucks for you guys!

Re:

So should a Canadian posting a link to 1984 by George Orwell online, a book in public domain in Canada, be subject to extradition to the US because the book is protected until 2044 under US law? That precedent has been repeatedly set.

Public domain works will still exist, even if you and your ilk keep creating methods to move 70 year old works back under copyright to make people not involved with the work money.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"Your opinions of proposed laws don't change the basic facts: This is the wild west, and just like the wild west, nobody is happy when the sheriff shows up and actually enforces the law."

What law? US law? Icelandic law? What countries law? Will the US submit to Sharia law on the internet (sorry no more boobs online), or is it only Sheriff Sam that has the right to enforce his version of "law" on everyone else? Hey, it worked out pretty nicely on the indians, right?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"Amazon, Itunes, and many others spend a small fortune every day to prevent their sites from getting hacked, to prevent people from making prank orders, and to avoid being scammed by people using stolen credit cards, fake IDs, and the like."

They also lose a huge number of sales every day due to ridiculous licensing, pricing and other restrictions placed on them by copyright holders.

But, guess what? They are all highly successful, in large part to their own innovation instead of cowering in a corner in fear of what the internet might be. Maybe your beloved industry should try that as well?

"Because of the anonymous nature of the intenet, people actually do scam even the big companies. "

Yes, because this NEVER happened before the internet... It's bizarre that you seem to think that shoplifting, identity theft and industrial espionage, credit card fraud, prank orders, fake IDs and many other things didn't occur before the internet. You are sadly mistaken, and delusional if you think that restrictions online will stop them.

"Your opinions of proposed laws don't change the basic facts"

...and your "facts" aren't related to reality, as usual.

"What you have here is basically an electronic lynching party for anyone who has the balls to actually stand up to the pirates and scammers."

Your fantasy world is no concern of ours. We deal with facts and reality here, sorry if they're inconvenient for you.

Re: Re: Re:

Wow, talk about going a long way to make a small point. I would say that the only difference is one of perception, that is to say "ragged children in the street" rather than "ragged children on dusty farms far from sight".

If you read a bit more of Henry George's work you will find that point is thoroughly addressed - and debunked.

"A primitive tribe may not produce much wealth, but all members are capable of an independent life. Each shares all the knowledge possessed by the tribe. They know the habits of animals, birds, and fishes. They can make their own shelter, clothing, and weapons. In short, they are all capable of supplying their own wants. The independence of all of the members makes them free contracting parties in their relations with the community.

Compare this savage with workers in the lowest ranks of civilized society. Their lives are spent in producing just one thing or, more likely, the smallest part of one thing. They cannot even make what is required for their work; they use tools they can never hope to own. Compelled to oppressive and constant labor, they get no more than the savage: the bare necessaries of life. Yet they lose the independence the savage keeps. "

The wild west concept meant that most men died young, where simple medical issues were not addressed because doctors refused to set up shop, and most people lived in constant fear of the lawlessness that existed.

Situations that make it almost impossible to do honest business, because you are more than likely going to get held up, have your products stolen, or your business destroyed by people who don't care about the law or what is fair.

I think you've been looking at the fictional wild west - not the reality here. There may have been few doctors - but then the population would not have suffered many on the diseases that contemporary city dwellers fell prey too. Plus of course the doctors of the day were beyond the financial means of the poorer half of society.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Well, if you're just trying to convince us all what a horrible place the Internet is without discussing proposed laws, that's fine. I'm not sure why you're so adamant about driving home that the Internet is a Wild West if you're not in support of the current laws, maybe you just think analogies are Serious Business and should always be properly applied. I understand, I'm the same way sometimes. But if what you're saying is in support of proposed laws, then yes, my opinions of proposed laws are indeed relevant, and just saying "It's the Wild West, and that's the end of it" is a very irresponsible way to approach Internet-related legislation.

Re: Re: Re:

> unless of course they are marketing to
> Americans, and doing so in a manner which
> is not legal in the US.

Quote me any statute, code, or regulation that defines such "marketing to Americans" as circumvention of US law.

And after you're done with that, then provide a citation to legal authority that makes that statute, code, or regulation binding on the entire world.

See, even if the US passed a law saying "if you market to Americans, US law applies to you", that law itself would not apply to anyone other than Americans in America.

No law Congress passes, no matter what it says or claims to do, is binding on every single person worldwide.

"or where their crime is not considered a real crime"

I love how you claim that if a country doesn't recognize as crimes everything the U.S. does, they're somehow not recognizing 'real' crimes. That dog don't hunt. The fact that a bunch of U.S. politicians allowed themselves to be bought by the entertainment industry doesn't mean every other country who declines to follow suit is failing to acknowlege 'real' crimes.

> Circumventing the law of one country

The use of the word 'circumvent' implies a duty or obligation to abide by the law in the first place. Citizens of other countries have no duty or obligation to obey U.S. law, anymore than I have a duty to obey Chinese or Iranian law when I put content up on the internet. One cannot circumvent that which one is not legally obligated to obey.

> by working from another country that won't
> prosecute you

They won't preosecute because IT'S NOT ILLEGAL THERE. The whole concept of national sovereignty really seems to have escaped you.